text:
Viewing and capturing real time values of Tachometer measuring instrument on television set and computer monitor in Aircraft and Automobiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachometer
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE2500376A1/en
Is it possible to view and capture real time values of a Tachometer in Aircrafts, Automobiles, Spacecrafts, Rockets etc measuring speed (RPM) using wired, wireless or CCTV technology on television set or computer monitor?
Scenarios
1 Aircraft - Tachometer interfaced wired/wireless with the television set or computer monitor - Larger screen display taking into account all security aspects inside the cockpit of the aircraft. Viewing the Aircraft's speed in miles/hour or kms/hour in real time.
Aircraft include Aeroplane, Helicopter, Fighter planes etc.
2 Automobiles - Tachometer interfaced wired/wireless with the television set or  computer monitor - Larger screen display fixed inside the passengers back seat of the four wheeler private owned vehicle viz Cars, Jeeps. Viewing the speed of the vehicle by the passenger in miles/hour or kms/hour in real time.
This includes the driverless vehicles.

Like, mounting a GoPro to film the instrument continuously? That's straightforward. Converting those images to a stream of data would certainly be possible, but well outside the scope of this site. What end result are you hoping to accomplish?

With modern automobiles (that is, after OBDII was introduced in the 1990s), it is trivially simple. You just need a Bluetooth OBDII reader (about $15 on Amazon, eBay, &c) and an application like Torque: https://torque-bhp.com/wiki/Main_Page
With most if not all light aircraft, it would be difficult, since the engines & instruments were developed long before modern electronics. You'd have to install additional sensors to pick up the data, which would probably be expensive, and might violate various regulations.

Would be cheap to do in an experimental...

@jamesqf It should be trivial to do if the aircraft has a glass cockpit (electronic, computerized avionics).

Most new light aircraft now have a G1000 (or I think one another altiernative), which makes it as easy as in a car.

@nick012000: But what percentage of GA aircraft are new enough to have a "glass cockpit"?  (I think upgrading older ones falls under the heading of non-trivial, no?)  Even then, do all the G1000 or similar units allow external devices to capture their data?  From the Wikipedia article, it seems like an extra-cost feature on high-end units: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmin_G1000#GSD_data_aggregator


text:
How are lavatory smoke detectors connected to the flight deck?
How are the smoke detectors in aircraft lavatories connected to the flight deck so the crew there can see the warning alarm? Do they have wires all the way from the lavatory to the flight deck, or are they connected in some other way?

Good question, I'd expect something like the aviation equivalent of CAN-bus.

or might be ARINC bus which do send may other parameters like temp, pressure from different sensors?

Data Bus
A quick Google search suggests the general approach is to minimise wiring by using a data-bus approach to carry information from multiple sources along a minimum number of wires
See ARINC 629 Data Bus Standard on Aircrafts

In earlier analogue avionic systems the number of cables used to transfer information between the various
  system components was considerable. With these systems, at least one pair of wires has been required for each signal
  and so a typical installation requires several pairs of wires. With the equivalent digital systems, all the analogue signals
  are converted into their equivalent and are assigned unique address labels to ensure there are no conflicts. These
  signals are then transmitted down a single pair of wires, which makes up a data bus. Aircraft data bus systems allow a
  wide variety of avionics equipment to communicate with one another and exchange data. The type of language used on
  an aircraft data bus is known as the protocol. There are currently different data bus standards (protocols) that currently
  account for most of the avionics data interchange on today’s aircraft, and these are: ARINC 429, ARINC 629, MILSTD
  1553, MIL-STD 1773, CSDB and ASCB.

I imagine that smoke detectors are just one example of the types of sensor that are integrated into such data-bus systems.
I expect there are several data-bus systems for redundancy and perhaps to isolate different categories of data.
Further reading

ARINC 429 as used on  A310/A320, A330/A340; 727, 737, 747, 757 767; MD-11 etc.
ARINC 629 as used on 777
AFDX as used on A380
Smoke Detectors interfaced by a safety critical aircraft
based CAN-Bus Network

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is there a legal requirement to tell your doctor you are a pilot?
Specifically if I visit a doctor in Canada who is not a CAME for my regular aviation medical, do I have to tell him/her that I have a pilot's licence?
You can imagine why I'm asking.  I just explained to someone that I'm supposed to mention this to any doctor I see.  However, it's been ages since I've flown and I would no longer do this as I haven't even kept my medical up to date.
I've just searched the CARS and can't find any reference to this being a law.  Is it possible I was told this by mistake, or as something that's just recommended?  I do recall doing this once or twice and the doctor didn't just pat me on the back and say "good for you".  He nodded and just acted like it was a normal thing to be told.
Not sure what tags are available, but I'm interested in answers from other countries as well.

It is only a requirement if the doctor is really cute.

It's not in the Canadian Aviation Regulations, but in the Aeronautics Act which enable the CARs.  It's section 6.5(2), and yes, if you are a pilot, you have to advise any doctor of that fact, and they in turn must advise the "Minister" if there is a possible aviation hazard.  Here it is ("Canadian Aviation Document" means your pilot licence):

6.5 (1) Where a physician or an optometrist believes on reasonable grounds that a patient is a flight crew member, an air traffic
  controller or other holder of a Canadian aviation document that
  imposes standards of medical or optometric fitness, the physician or
  optometrist shall, if in his opinion the patient has a medical or
  optometric condition that is likely to constitute a hazard to aviation
  safety, inform a medical adviser designated by the Minister forthwith
  of that opinion and the reasons therefor.
(2) The holder of a Canadian aviation document that imposes standards
  of medical or optometric fitness shall, prior to any medical or
  optometric examination of his person by a physician or optometrist,
  advise the physician or optometrist that he is the holder of such a
  document.

Thanks.  It's always interesting to see how hard it is to figure out the law.  There's so many documents to look at to find the right one.  Note this answer contradicts the one I accepted.  I also never learned nor do I remember being tested on the Aeronautics act.

@brian you could probably visit a doctor in another country, in which case Canadian laws would no longer apply

In the US, you are not required to inform a doctor that you are a pilot. However, on the application for a medical certificate (Form 8500-8) you must list all "visits to health professionals" in the last three years, including type of professional and the reason for the visit.
The medical examiner uses that information to guide questions to ask about your medical history: a yearly checkup with your family doctor will not be remarked on, while a visit to a specialist might invite scrutiny about that area of your medical status. Depending on any existing conditions, you may need a letter from your primary doctor explaining your condition, but you would specifically ask for this rather than expect it to be provided.

What about Canada?

I'm not familiar with Canada's regulations - just answering the last point, about other countries.

Thanks, I find the regulations are very similar between the 2 countries.

You don't have to.
The reason is because you do have to tell your CAME about everything at your next aviation medical exam anyway.
The reason you are not required to tell your doctor that you are a pilot is because section 602.02 and 602.03 of the CARS give you the responsibility to not fly if your medical condition or drug you are taking renders you not fit to fly.
There is contact info for Civil Aviation offices and they can help you with that determination: Civil Aviation offices.
The CARS are available at one big 4mb web page here.

602.02 No operator of an aircraft shall require any person to act as a flight crew member and no person shall act as a flight crew member, if
  either the person or the operator has any reason to believe, having
  regard to the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken,
  that the person (a) is suffering or is likely to suffer from fatigue;
  or (b) is otherwise unfit to perform properly the person’s duties as a
  flight crew member.

That's true, but what about in the interim?  Say I'm prescribed Oxy or something.  A commercial pilot will have the company's policies or doctor to guide him, as a private pilot, you're suggesting I would have to figure out for myself if it was legal and wise.

I didn't mean to suggest you have to figure it out by yourself, only that you are not required to tell your doctor that you are a pilot. 602.02 and 602.03 give you the responsibility to not fly if your medical condition or drug you are taking renders you not fit to fly. There is contact info for Civil Aviation offices and they can help you with that determination: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/cam-offices-886.htm

I added your comment as part of the answer since it added extra information.  It's in peer review, but I think you can fix it or roll it back if it's not to your liking.

@brian Looks good!

Honestly, telling your "regular" Doctor that you are a pilot is quite useless.  They don't have any idea what the implications are.  You can inform them that everything they do will have to go through your AME for approval (if surgery or medication) and you will also use the AME for second opinions.  In my experience, regular doctors like to play it safe and give you a "diagnoses" for things that you might not even have, whereas AMEs will actually take the time to do things right and verify before treatment.

In Norway all Your medical records are stored in one database.
Every doctor, public or private, have access to this register, they will also add Your visit in the database.
Only way to get around this database is to visit a witch doctor or see a doctor outside the country.

Welcome to aviation.SE! While this information is certainly interesting - I didn't know that Norway has witch doctors easily available - and even relevant, I don't think it really answers the question of whether you have to tell your (witch) doctor that you're a pilot.

I thought it was self explaining, if I renew my health certificate, my docktor will of cause check my medical record, then he will see I have been  prescribed prozac from an another doctor 3 month ago. Beside I think my professional is recorded also, like pilot for Birdwing etc. So even the doctor that threated me 3 months ago with Prozac would know I am a pilot

Or you simply don't visit any doctor at all.

In the UK, like the other countries mentioned, you're not required to tell a doctor you're a pilot. However, if you have a medical problem that may impede your ability to fly, you are required to tell the CAA (the national aviation body), who will probably suspend your medical certificate until you get checked out by your medical examiner.
I've been advised by more senior pilots that you shouldn't tell doctors you're a pilot if you can avoid it. Doctors who don't normally deal with pilots are unlikely to know the criteria for a medical certificate, so may overreact to minor ailments. They might not even know that you get checked out by another doctor anyway! One colleague reported that when his doctor treated him for high blood pressure (that was still within the acceptable limit for his class 2 certificate), she got very agitated when he told her he was a pilot. She thought he shouldn't be allowed to fly with high blood pressure, and was worried that she might be required to tell someone or face legal consequences.
Even so, it might be necessary to tell your doctor for practical reasons. For example, some medications are not allowed for pilots, so you may need to explain to your doctor that they can only prescribe certain drugs or treatments for your condition, which will necessarily involve telling them you're a pilot.
Although I don't know about the rest of Europe, I would expect it's one of the things that is harmonised across the EASA region.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How did flight 2574 break up?
My understanding of Continental Express flight 2574 is that a de-icing boot on the horizontal stabilizer of the EMB120 was missing screws and therefore detached, leading to the tail separating.
I would appreciate an explanation, with as much aerodynamic information as necessary, for how the tail separation could be caused by the boot removal.

It didn't directly lead to the tail separating. What separated wasn't just the de-ice boot, it was the whole leading edge on the left stabilizer. That caused a stall of the left horizontal stabilizer and an increase in drag on the left side. The wings of an aircraft have a tendency to pitch the aircraft down (as they're behind the center of gravity and provide a force upwards), while the stabilizer produces a force downwards to keep the plane's pitch stable. With the loss of lift on the left stabilizer, there was less downforce (leading to a pitch down), more downforce on the right than on the left (leading to a right roll), and more drag on the left than the right (leading to left yaw).
These rather violent motions led to massive aerodynamic loads on the plane, resulting in the next failure: the left wing. When this failed, the plane violently rolled right, for reasons I'm not quite sure of (I get violently rolling, but am unsure why it was to the right). This roll stressed the plane even more, and that is when the tail ripped off the plane. The direct cause was extreme aerodynamic forces caused by the flight path, not the leading edge separation itself.

I've asked a separate question about why the plane would have rolled to the right.


text:
Is a first class medical to be an airline pilot eventually possible?
I have a history of ocd and a little depression when I was younger . Up until now I’ve taken a number of SSRIs and finally recently risperidone which I’m almost tapered off of for ocd.I have been symptom free for a while and believe I can be a pilot. I have a number of hours of flying time from over the years. The issue is I have a history of taking abilify and an SSRI and risperidone which is also an anti psychotic and cymbalta. I’ve never been diagnosed with psychosis but the risperidone (antipsychotic) can help with ocd. If I’ve been off of all of medicine and am stable is a first class medical eventually possible? They say it’s unacceptable to have a history of multi drug agent psychiatric drug used in conjunction with an SSRI. Is my airline pilot career not possible and has this ever been done. Thanks

"They say it’s unacceptable to have a history of multi drug agent psychiatric drug used in conjunction with an SSRI." - Who says that? I've never heard of a history of medication use being disqualifying.

You need to contact an AME who specializes in special issuance cases. Dr Bruce Chien is well respected and can be found at http://www.aeromedicaldoc.com It is possible to get a medical, but it is expensive. This post details one persons experience. https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-ssri-special-issuance.113052/

@TannerSwett  It's on the advice to AME's. I can't believe they could really hold them to that if it's been many years, but it is there

The section
Decision Considerations - Aerospace Medical Dispositions
Item 47. Psychiatric Conditions
From the FAA's website has a lot of the information for you. This page on SSRI's specifically has even more info to read up on. If you burrow down you will find a lot of worksheets and AME advisory papers most of which ultimately state

Requires FAA Decision/Submit to FAA for approval

This basically means that the AME can not make the decision and its up to the FAA directly. That being said there is hope and they do make a path pretty clear for you to take.
In any case if you are tapering off a drug it may be best to wait until you are off it completely to go see an AME. The FAA seems to be much more cut and dry on current usage and far more "case by case" on historical usage based on the way the regs are written.
You may also want to take a look at the regulations here

AOPA has been working with the FAA on these kinds of questions.  You can see a "MEDICAL CERTIFICATION, FAA ACCEPTED MEDICATIONS DATABASE" by joining AOPA.org and then selecting Pilot Resourses/Medical Resources, and Medications Database.
That list shows:
Cymbalta / duloxetine
NOT ALLOWED,    antidepressant,     depression, diabetic neuropathy
So you might want to work an AOPA medical certification specialists and your doctor to see if you can get off that.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why does the B737NG need electrical power for aircraft towing?
I have read the AMM for towing and one of the mentioned steps is to supply electrical power. Is it because you need power to turn on the hydraulics in order to pressurize your brakes?
For B737NG

Generally electric hydraulic pumps are used to provide emergency braking above and beyond what’s in the accumulator.

How does the EMDP provides emergency braking? I thought only the accumulator provides it if you don't have any hydraulics available.

Each system has an EMDP on it, the EMDP pressurizes the hydraulic system just like the engine driven pump normally work, just with a much lower maximum flow rate. Since there is very little load on the hydraulics during tow, the EMDP can easily maintain 3,000 psi and the brakes work just like normal. If the EMDP were to fail, then fluid from the accumulator would be used. I believe @Frank meant "emergency braking" as in you had a broken towbar and had to use aircraft brakes, not as in emergency braking power from the accumulator.

You need power for lighting, fans, intercom, and CVR/flight recorder, cameras; any and all of them are required for towing an aircraft, depending upon its size, and in the event of an accident.
See:

"Aircraft Towing":
Accidents and Incidents

"B763, Luton UK, 2005 (On 16 February 2005, at Luton Airport, a Boeing B767-300 collided with the tug pulling it forward when the shear pin of the unserviceable tow bar being used to pull the aircraft broke. The aircraft ran onto the tug when the ground crew stopped the tug suddenly. As result of the collision with the tug the aircraft fuselage and landing gear was damaged.)"

"JS41, Birmingham UK, 2007 (On 26 June 2007, at Birmingham Airport UK, a BAe Jetstream 41 started an engine running pushback without using intercom between ground crew and flight crew. The pushback could not be completed as the towbar could not be disconnected and confusion over a decision to return the aircraft to the gate resulted in an attempt to do so with the aircraft brakes selected which caused the aircraft nose landing gear to collapse.)"

"Pushback":

"The responsibilities of the ground crew team carrying out a pushback include ensuring that no part of the aircraft structure will impact any fixed object or other aircraft and may include giving clearance to start one or more engines just before, during or immediately after a pushback. The number of people assigned to a ground crew team for a pushback may vary according to aircraft size, but in most cases will be at least three. One will be driving the pushback vehicle, one will be walking in the vicinity of one of the aircraft wingtips and looking beyond the aircraft tail and one will be in charge of the manoeuvre and in communication with the person with aircraft responsibility in the flight deck. Communication between the ground crew supervisor is usually by means of a plug in to an aircraft ground intercom circuit; if so, this is facilitated by a ground crew microphone which acquires the voice of the user whilst excluding background noise, which if the aircraft engines are running can be considerable. If only two ground crew are used for pushback of a smaller aircraft then it is important that the procedure takes full account of the roles of each ground crewmember and that the person in charge of ground crew communications on the flight deck is aware of the number of ground crew being used and the physical location of the supervisor. ...
  Observations of abnormal circumstances in connection with engine starts or any other matter affecting, or potentially affecting the safety of the aircraft during a pushback are of great importance to those on the flight deck but it is essential that any descriptions of external observations during engine starts are imparted accurately; this may sometimes be demanding using ground intercom but can be extremely difficult with only hand signals available.".

Accidents and Incidents

"A332, Karachi Pakistan, 2014 (On 4 October 2014, the fracture of a hydraulic hose during an A330-200 pushback at night at Karachi was followed by dense fumes in the form of hydraulic fluid mist filling the aircraft cabin and flight deck. After some delay, during which a delay in isolating the APU air bleed exacerbated the ingress of fumes, the aircraft was towed back onto stand and an emergency evacuation completed. During the return to stand, a PBE unit malfunctioned and caught fire when one of the cabin crew attempted to use it which prevented use of the exit adjacent to it for evacuation.)
  ...

"B738 / B738, Toronto Canada, 2018 (On 5 January 2018, an out of service Boeing 737-800 was pushed back at night into collision with an in-service Boeing 737-800 waiting on the taxiway for a marshaller to arrive and direct it onto the adjacent terminal gate. The first aircraft’s tail collided with the second aircraft’s right wing and a fire started. The evacuation of the second aircraft was delayed by non-availability of cabin emergency lighting. The Investigation attributed the collision to failure of the apron controller and pushback crew to follow documented procedures or take reasonable care to ensure that it was safe to begin the pushback.)"

There are additional examples available at those links which were not quoted. Sometimes there are external cameras which are useful to record towing operations in the event of an accident.


text:
How much does it cost to add a glider rating to a PPL?
In Europe, how much does it cost to learn to fly gliders if you're already a private pilot? I am one, so I already have the medical and theory etc. but what cost can I expect for a GPL on top of a PPL?

We can't always answer cost questions in a good way because the answer can depend a lot on your personal situation. If you mention your country it might help to get an answer. It would be easier to ask what the requirements (training, hours, exams) are, but of course that's a different question and maybe it wouldn't help you.

Notice that under EASA rules (Europe), to fly a glider you need a license, not a rating. The licenses are either LAPL(S) or SPL if you want to be fancy.  The transition to EASA rules are is not complete yet, and your local national rules will still be at least partly in place. Best place to ask is your local gliding club. Regarding costs - this will vary, your chosen launch method (winch or tow) being a significant factor.

If you're in Romania, are a Romanian citizen and are under 23 you can do it for free in the Romanian Airclub.
Otherwise it's 15 eur/winch launch and  25 eur/tow at around 300m.
I'm not sure if there's any deduction from the glider training if you have ppl but I know that if you have the glider licence you get a shorter training plan for motorized aircraft.

Young Romanians are lucky! Wish we had the same in other countries. Still unable to afford any kind of flying...

This is going to vary widely depending on circumstances, but I can share my personal experience since I did what you are asking about fairly recently.
I got my PPL back in 2004 but pretty much stopped flying two to three years later for financial reasons.  In 2015, I determined through discussions with the glider club I am a member of that I could afford to start flying again in gliders.  I started working on my rating in August 2015 and did my checkride in July 2016.  My stats during training were:

Flights (which equavlates to to takeoffs and landings): 67
Time: 12 hours, 48 minutes
Cost for instruction: \$0
Cost for hourly rental and tows: \$2626
Club dues: \$500 initiation + \$33 a month = \$396
Misc (Books mostly): \$100

Total: $3122
Notes:

The club I belong to, Skyline Soaring Association (SSA) is in Front Royal, Virginia USA.  I don't know how these numbers would compare to other clubs or doing this through a commercial operation.
Our club does not charge for instruction.  Instead, instruction is one of the duties members (who are qualified) perform as part of their participation in the club.  I would expect that instruction would be an extra charge in a commmercial operation as it is in powered flight schools.
My club's rate sheet is here if you'd like to better understand how these costs break down.

Note: I posted this answer before the edit was made qualifying this question to Europe.  I am curious though how the two would compare.


text:
What is the longest distance at which an aircraft can be visually identified?
In the IL-2 flight simulator, when you turn on "markers" for planes you can see a belligerent side, the aircraft belongs to, at a distance up to 6km (3.75 miles) as well as its type with a tail number.
But in some books I've read mentions that pilots were able to see an aircraft number, its specific painting/livery etc. of other aircraft they encountered.
So I wonder: in real life, at what distance can such things can be distinguished by a pilot with good sight (I understand that this depends on the size of an aircraft)?

Curious. We just (a few days ago) had a question about essentially the same thing (but larger distances) over on [worldbuilding.se]. How large does a spacecraft need to be to be visible from the surface of the Earth at 400 km altitude?

The key piece of information here is the "Angular Resolution" of the naked eye.
Is called in this way because the key parameter is the perceived angle between two points when looking at them. Let's take 2 points that are distant 1 meter one from the other.
Let's then put them at a distance from your eyes, the angle you see between them can be computed as follows:

Image source
$angle\_in\_degrees = 2*atan(\frac{distance\_between\_them}{2*distance\_from\_you})*\frac{180}{\pi} $

if they are 10 meters from you, they will appear about 5.7° apart
at 100 meters from you, they will appear 0.57° apart
1000 meters, 0.057° apart

Note that two dots 10 meters apart and 100 meters from you will appear with the same 5.7° of the dots 1 meter apart and 10 meters from you: this is why, if you do not have other references, is nearly impossible to understand the distance from you of an object.
Now you are interested in reading something, in particular the aircraft number.
The naked eye cannot distinguish two points that appear less than 0.0128° apart (bright day, with no haze nor warm air distortion)
From what we see above, if the lettering is 1m tall, you could distinguish it at about 4 km.
To actually read it, though, you will have to pick up the details, that will be much smaller: thik of distinguishing a "O" from a "D", you will have to notice that the left side is straight (or not), a detail much smaller than the total height of the letter and this will greatly reduce you maximum distance at which you can read.
Recognizing the livery instead is quite easier, as full portion of the aircraft will be painted, and in this case you only have to pick up the colours, not details of the shapes.
You could also distinguish the shape of on aircraft from a larger distance, given the much larger dimension of a full aircraft, but as for the letters, smaller details will not be recognizable until you get close enough, where "enough" depends on time of day, weather conditions and size of what you want to observe.

You need 5 pixels to encode somewhat recognizable capitals and 8 pixels for decent ones, so the factor to divide the letters by should be something like that. Leads to about 500m-800m for 1m high letters. But I don't think they are as big. A small plane like C172 does not even have any continuous flat area where 6 such letters would fit.

@JanHudec I totally agree that 1 meter is big, I used it for simplicity of calculation. Thanks for the pixel information, if you have any source, would you care to add it to the answer?

I don't have reference; just judging from how fonts looked on old low-resolution screens.

As you can expect for a question of this nature, it depends. Atmospheric condition are a big factor, in hazy conditions you can't see as far. Background and altitude are other factors. It is easy to lose sight of a plane when there are many buildings behind it.
If you know where to look, like a small plane that announced itself on final, in good conditions you might actually see them from 8 to 10 miles away. Just scanning for traffic you might see a plane from 5 miles away, but in many cases they are less than a mile away before you notice it. There is a difference between looking and seeing. You can look at something but not see it.
As far as reading the N numbers, I doubt that anyone could read one from more than half a mile away. The numbers are supposed to be 1 foot high, if I remember the regs correctly, so looking at one on the ground can give you an idea of the distance you can read it. Some older planes have very small numbers.
The shape of a plane helps to identify the type. Some planes like Mooneys have distinguishing features like their vertical stabilizer.

I'll also add The context. Or, everything one actually knows in a specific situation to identify a plane :
In real life, there are regions of the globe where you don't find planes a lot. When you know which airplanes are flying in the region, you may identify it even 10 miles away, based on factors like :

the apparent size (compared to its motion) -> It's a white twin engine widebody ? -> 777F of Air France landing in Africa
the visible colors -> It's the An28 of some airline (Completely Black)
the time : Afternoon, a cyan 747 taking off from CDG -> Korean Air
events : what looks like a shiny 747-200 at Orly -> Air Force One during some international summit..
etc.

That also applies in the books you read : in the old days of world wars, you don't have much planes flying around unless it's foo or friend. So you can expect to encounter less different types of aircraft. Was-it a F4, a Spitfire or a Stutka, those could be identified from far away, while beeing just assumptions, fighter pilots were rarely mistaken.

Close combat like those describes by veterans : look at their palms : you rarely see a chased plane from behind, mostly from above for example : this gives several opportunities to read anything written big on the plane, both in bright and dark condition depending on the aircraft relative position to the sun. Changing luminosity helps reading aircraft numbering (you can experiment this during acrobatic airshows, looking at the plane from the ground)

And intelligence : During world war, you had spies, often civilians who gather information about the enemy's equipment. So, sometimes, fighter pilots knews how many enemy warbirds they may encounter, the models, the colors/markings, etc. and even the registrations, well before meeting them someday, if ever.

Finally : IL2 Sturmovik is a game. It's purpose is to entertain. If you were playing such game and expect to identify a plane 6 miles away just by looking at the screen, you may just barely notice a pixel dot and come closer.. closer... until it's too late. Arraagh ! X( (same thing applies to any game)
A game is not a game (and doesn't sell well) if you don't enjoy it, so, helping you identify friends and threats adds in the gameplay even if it's not really realistic.

That's what it was actually like: by the time they're close enough to identify, it's too late. And the difficulty ()what they trained to do) was noticing them at all, especially behind you.

@ChrisW: Indeed, spotting the enemy was the hard part. It helped a lot that each side had different types.


text:
What are these diagonal devices above the leading edge of the V-22 Osprey's wing?
The Osprey has some kind of aerodynamic devices sticking up along the top of the leading edge. This picture from the Wikipedia page of the wings rotated shows them against its silhouette:-

Public domain picture taken by Lt. Col. Kevin Gross
You can see them a little clearer on this photo shot from above, on the same page:-

Author Peter Gronemann, licensed CC 2.0
Seen from above, they look like alternating slashes and backslashes, and they're clearly intended to change the flow properties in some way. But what precisely do they achieve, and how?

The protrusions you're asking about are vortex generators.
As to how they work, there is a separate Stack Exchange article on that: How do vortex generators work?
(Please note, the linked question/answer does not even MENTION the CV-22, and is thus not a duplicate question to this one.)


text:
What does N mean after a runway visual range (in a METAR)?
This morning's METAR for Cambridge looked like this:
EGSC 110720Z 11001KT 0150 R23/0200N R05/0175N FZFG BKN001 M02/M02 Q1028
Note the bold runway visual range (RVR) indications. What does the N mean?

RVR often has a letter at the end to indicate the visibility trend, so you can tell if it's going to improve (and maybe you should circle overhead for a while) or worsen (and you should consider going to your alternate).
U means an "upward" trend: visibility is improving. D means a "downward" trend: visibility is worsening. N means no change.


text:
Do the FAA 8130-3 and EASA Form 1 have a validity period?
I have investigated both FAA and EASA regulations and am unable to conclude if there is any restriction or limitation to the validity of an FAA 8130-3 or EASA Form 1 release. So technically, any of these release documents remain valid for as long as the end-user is willing to accept them.
My question refers to aircraft components without any Time/Life limitations so OC/CM. This is just in case someone deems it relevant.
Is there any contradictory information that someone can provide or am I assessing this correctly?
Thank you!

An 8130-3 does not list an expiration date, but that does not mean that the item can always be returned to service regardless of how long ago the tag was issued. Having the 8130-3 and not installing the item does not relieve the owner from compliance with any AD's issued since the tag was issued, for example. You may also run into a component that had an 8130-3 issued a long time ago with the expectation that it would be put back into service, but is put into storage for a long time, and the proper steps for long term storage of the item as per the manufacturer are not followed. The tag doesn't let you skip that kind of thing.


text:
How should this ODP be flown if heading east?
The KFDK departure procedure for RWY 23 states:

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:  Rwy 23, climb heading 229° to 1200 before turning right.

Does this only apply if making any sort of right turn after takeoff i.e. to the west? If my course was east or south and would I still need to climb to 1200, make a right turn, and effectively make a right climbing turn to fly back over the airport to get on course?

If you intend to turn left I don't see any constraint. The ODP only constrains right turns, presumably due to obstacles in that direction. Could you clarify your question?

That is exactly my question. If I wanted to turn left, is there a constraint?

The way I read it, no matter which direction my final course will be, I'm supposed to fly to 1200 then make a right turn through 220 degrees to get on an easterly heading. It's the 'before' part of the description that is confusing, does it mean 'before turns to the right' (implying you're fine if you turn left)?

Presumably you would always make a right turn when departing runway 23 since a left turn would take you straight into the Washington TFR

@jhougaard, I think by "TFR" you are referring to the DC SFRA which is about five miles away, so easily outside the turn radius of many left turn departures. More importantly, the SFRA does not generally restrict IFR aircraft. See for example that IAD is entirely within the SFRA, a common IFR destination for me.

@Rainkinz, I see your point of confusion, but you have the instructions misunderstood. If the ODP needed aircraft to turn in a particular direction it would prescribe a heading. In this case it is specifying that a turn to the right of the extended centerline will be protected if above the prescribed altitude.

Thanks I think that makes it clear.

The only constraint is for right turns. If you plan to turn right, you should follow the procedure, especially if it's IFR. If you plan to fly straight ahead or turn left, you meet the minima for a safe departure using standard climb rates.
There is NO REQUIREMENT to make a right turn.
Takeoff minima procedures do not take adjacent ATC airspace into account, however. It's up to the pilot to know that the airspace is there.
Looking at the sectional, there's a ridge to the west of the airport that starts at 1000 feet (400 feet above the field), and gets higher to the southwest. That's the reason for the restriction.
Some charted procedures will have "avoid such-and-such airspace" on them, but these are usually found only on published IFR departure procedures (and approach plates), such as the LLADN1 at Hulett, Wyoming. Note the instructions for Devil's Tower and the Powder River MOA.


text:
When should a PPL student start learning navigation?
A big part of the ground syllabus for PPL training is navigation and flight planning. The ground training feeds into practising navigation in-flight and of course eventually to the qualifying cross-country.
What's the best time to start the classroom work on this subject, in the context of training that's spread out over a long period? What are the pros and cons of learning it at different times? If it makes a difference, I'm interested in the situation in the UK for an EASA PPL.

I can't honestly see how this could be anything but opinion based. I struggle to work out any pro or con of learning it earlier or later. What are you actually asking here - whether leearning it before you need to is detrimental in some way?

I also don't understand the question.  If you're learning you have a CFI.  He'll tell you when and what.

@user6035379 By that logic there shouldn't be any flight training questions on the site.

Is the real question here "why hasn't my instructor started teaching me navigation yet?" :-) I tend to agree with kevin, FWIW. There's a lot of theory in navigation and presumably you need it for your written exam(s) anyway, so the sooner you start the sooner you can work towards that. But I don't know if there's any typical best practice, it probably also has something to do with how your instructor (or school) wants to manage the syllabus and his own time.

Are you asking this from a CFI or student perspective? As a student, the answer is start learning as soon as possible. As a CFI the answer is far more nuanced.

As early as possible.
They say "aviate, navigate, communicate", which puts navigation into a pretty high priority - just behind flying the plane. It is more important than talking on radios.
I cannot see any downside for learning navigation too early beside the natural "memory decay" for acquiring any new material & knowledge. Even basic navigation techniques will benefit your first day of flying (unless you're absolutely not interested in knowing where you are). You can even discuss the route with your instructor during the pre-flight, even if flight planning is not the lesson today. You will not get to know the details, but you will be introduced to aerial navigation.
That, of course, assume that you are learning at a comfortable pace and you are not struggling with the present material.

I would also say "As early as possible" with a different rationale and a few caveats:
You need to learn about airspaces and charts so that while you're working with the maps, you understand what you are doing. It would help also to understand a little bit about aircraft performance.
A lot of learning navigation is an iterative process -- you learn a little, go work a little, internalize a little, and build a broader base to learn on. It doesn't hurt to try to build that base early, but keep in mind that if things don't make sense you may be missing some pieces.
It's difficult to get the full scope of what you need to know when you're just starting out, so be comfortable with the fact that it may not make sense all at once. "Navigation" is a very comprehensive skill that gets better with study, practice, and time (ie retreading the knowledge and skills over a period).

I think what you are looking for is to understand the learning experience. Much of what you learn in ground school only really makes sense in context, ie when you are in the left seat of the airplane. Doing the classroom work makes the best sense when it is close to the time you will use it.
To get a license you can either go for an intensive course over a month or have lessons spaced out much more. With intensive courses you go the ground school just before you start the actual flying, when it's spaced out the tendency is to do the book learning and written tests as you go along.
Studying navigation way ahead of using it is unlikely to give you any real advantage as you will likely forget a lot by the time you do go flying and have to re-learn the topics.

Sorry my question was unclear; I didn't think about the case of an "intensive" course where you do all the ground school first. I'm talking about a training syllabus which is spread out over a long period, with individual topics interspersed between the flying.


text:
If a plane lands vertically in a strong headwind, what will the pilot do to exit the runway?
If a plane lands vertically in a strong headwind, what will the pilot do to exit the runway?
If he increases the speed, wouldn't that be dangerous (I mean he will fly again)?

Go somewhere else without winds that high.

What if it is a large scale storm and you have no fuel to go to an other airport.

If you're in a situation where you can "land vertically" (I assume that means you are landing into a headwind equal in velocity to your landing airspeed), then it's simply dangerous for an aircraft to be anywhere on the ground without being properly tied down. Even if you were able to turn the aircraft, it would probably be lifted into the air again as the wind caught the fuselage broadside.

Then how do An-2's operate at all? They can takeoff and land on a blown kiss.

@NicHartley : But the An-2 can fly so slowly in a slight breeze that it's basically almost hovering. However, it might have to do with the angle of attack. The extreme slow flight the An-2 is famous for, is actually a near-stall, with the aircraft working more like a parachute or paraglider, being able to land almost like a parachute in the event of an engine failure. It can fly faster than that on takeoff or landing.

@vsz Yeah, but that's even more of a different situation. When you glide like a parachute, the moment you touch down you lose all lift. The same is not true with headwind.

I'd imagine the An-2 puts its flaps up after landing, too.

I landed a C-152 at KMHV (Mojave, CA) with AWOS saying winds were 38kt gusting to 45kt straight down runway 8. It was not a vertical landing but the ground effect lowered the landing ground speed to ~15kts. Why? Because the pilot side door opened in moderate turbulence at 7500 MSL and would not latch, and was banging in the turbulence and freezing my head since OAT was ~10F. (Hard to fly the plane while holding the door closed!) I taxied very slowly with the controls in the 'keep-it-from-flying' orientation, parked facing the wind, bent the door frame back by hand to get the door to latch, taxied back to 8 very slowly, advanced the throttle and departed with a 100 ft roll.
EDIT: 20180405 ...
I just look at the control surfaces to make sure they are forcing the plane DOWN given the direction the wind coming from... Here is a better description:
From the AOPA Windy Flights Page
Taxiing Technique:
Taxiing in a crosswind requires additional control inputs to keep the airplane's tires well planted and, in a strong crosswind, to prevent a wing or the tail of the airplane from being lifted by the wind.  It can be confusing remembering which way the ailerons should be positioned during a crosswind taxi, but this memory aid may help: When you hold the yoke, your thumb points up; when the wind is coming from in front and to one side (a quartering headwind), point your thumbs into the wind. When the wind is coming from behind, point your thumb away from the wind. So, for instance, if the wind is coming from the left rear ( quartering tailwind), deflect the yoke to the right (thumb points right and away from the wind).
To remember the elevator inputs during a crosswind taxi, remember that when taxiing downwind (in the same direction as the wind is blowing), the elevator should be down. When taxiing upwind, the elevator should be neutral (for tricycle gear airplanes) or up (for tailwheel airplanes). Watch the movement of wind socks, flags, grass, etc., as you taxi, and change control inputs appropriately as your taxi direction changes.

I think they key bit that answers the question is the controls in the 'keep-it-from-flying' orientation. It would be good if you could expand on that by editing your answer.

Depending on the aircraft, mind you, consider what would happen if you suddenly jammed the controls to keep-it-from-flying at Vr.  I expect if you could land with no groundspeed there would be, in some airframes, a real risk that you might plant the nose of the aircraft right into the dirt.


text:
Why are in-flight entertainment systems not very evolved?
Why don't in-flight entertainment systems have the capability to connect to our own devices and play movies? Or why don't they have arena gaming?
Are there any regulations that prevent engineers from designing innovative in-flight entertainment systems?
I mean, what factors come into play - regulations, cost, weight, complexity?

Connecting a private device is potentially a security hole. On the other hand aircraft manufacturers are not designing gaming spaces nor TV sets, or the flight price would account for this service.

Related

Depends on what "evolved" means. The in-flight entertainment I had for my trip from London to Abu-Dhabi in an A380 was very impressive: a massive array of TV shows, movies, games I could play against my girlfriend next to me and my friend up in seat B23, movies and TV aligned so my GF and I were watching the same thing at exactly the same time, chatrooms, communication (phone, emails), USB connectivity, streaming TV (I watched a F1 race live), news and another 30 screens I didn't fully explore. It's not common (yet), but it exists, and it puts my home TV to shame.

Good question. One thing I would like is to have a way to know where exactly we are flying, what exactly I see out of window. Nothing fancy. Simple text chat or text messages on my phone would be fine.

@PeterMasiar Almost every personal IFE system I've ever seen has a map display showing your current location. Of course, GPS on your phone works, too, though you usually need to be by a window to get a decent signal. Most of the airlines that offer in-flight wi-fi service (in my experience, at least) also have such displays that you can access from a browser on your device.

Southwest airlines has an in-flight entertainment system that broadcasts TV, movies, and other entertainment to your personal device over Wifi.

@reirab old thread, and maybe these services didn't exist in 2016, but if you have WiFi and the airline doesn't show you where the plane is, can't you look on FlightRadar24 or FlightAware?

@Someone Yes, that works, too. At least on the U.S. carriers, though, the difference is that the display provided by the airline was usually provided for free (i.e. accessible via Wi-Fi even if you didn't pay for in-flight Wi-Fi Internet access,) but using FR24 or FlightAware would require having actual Internet access. Though there are some carriers (notably JetBlue and, as of very recently, Delta) do provide free in-flight Internet access.

It's expensive. If you wanted to build something like an XBox or Playstation into each seat,  you're talking about an absolute minimum of \$300 per seat (\$60,000 for a small-ish aircraft like a 737, \$160,000 for a typical A380, and probably much more). While that doesn't sound like a lot on the price of an airliner, it certainly adds up over a fleet of hundreds of aircraft... all of which means you have to add to the ticket price and become less competitive. And that's just talking about gaming.
Safety/security. Allowing the passengers to connect to the system, no matter how well designed, is a potential security hole. This can be avoided to some extent if you completely separate the systems, but there's always potential for someone to find a loophole you didn't think of (overloading the in-flight entertainment and messing up the electrical power, for example). Dealing with this would add significantly to the cost above.
There isn't much need to. Most people who fly are either happy with the in-flight movie choices, or bring their own iPad/Kindle etc.
While using Airplay to send movies from your iPad to your TV works pretty well for one or two devices at home... it quickly falls apart when you're trying to make a wireless network capable of handling 200-800 streams at once!
General safety concerns: despite the fact that we're now fairly confident that having electrical devices on with their WiFi/Bluetooth/4G off is safe, to send the movies they'd need to turn WiFi or similar on, which is a potential risk

In short it's a lot of risk and cost, for not much reward. If you have an iPad with you, why do you need to send the movie to the TV screen in front of you? You can just watch it on the iPad.
Note also that some airlines do have some basic multiplayer gaming built into the IFE: although it's more "Connect 4" than "Battlefield 4"

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Heat dissipation might also be an issue if you put 300 Xboxes into a not-huge room.

I agree with points 2-5, but point 1 is way off target. The price of a B737 (including the usual huge discounts on the "list price") is of the order of USD 10m. Another USD 60k is almost a rounding error. Or looking at it a different way, a mere ten cents on the ticket price would pay for a 300 dollar box over 10 years, at 300 flights a year (which is a very low number of flights, for a 737)

@alephzero - if you can persuade Ryanair to spend $60,000 per aircraft on Xboxes for their fleet, you're a better salesman than I am. And it's as much about the additional weight, cooling, power system modifications, fuel use as it is about the initial cost

@DavidRicherby - Perhaps they don't need to have the consoles in the cabin (which is a regulated pressure & temperature environment), but instead run cables from a cooler area of the plane. USB works over 10m-20m without a signal boost (I ran 15m cables once, don't ask). and HDMI is longer.

You point 5 is a little off.  Flights, at least in the US, often times provide WiFi for in flight internet access so it's unlikely having Wifi on is a concern.  I think it all boils down to a combination of 1 and 3.  The reason I dismiss #2 is that planes already have Wifi access points that 1337 haxors can play with.  Adding an Xbox wouldn't seem to make that any less secure.  I'd also reject #4 as for the aforementioned reason that planes already offer Wifi.

@DeanMacGregor again I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's a whole bunch of extra traffic (onboard wifi is limited to the fairly slow satellite link). but there are still some important differences and it can't just necessarily be retrofitted in... it's certainly more possible for newly designed/built planes, if there was a demand for it

@alephzero The cost concern is not such a big deal with new planes, but most planes flying for airlines aren't new. The cost of taking a plane out of service for a retrofit (and getting said retrofit certified by the relevant authorities, where necessary) is much larger than the cost of a SOM and a touchscreen.

@alephzero 10 years?  If you decide to go this route, then you are going to need to replace everything long before 10 years.

Why don't in-flight entertainment systems have the capability to connect to our own devices and play movies?

The answer is that they do. These are actually quite common in the U.S. and many other parts of the world and have been so for at least a few years now. All of Delta's recently-acquired or upgraded interiors on anything 737/A320 size and up have this, for example. Most of Cathay Pacific's fleet and, IIRC, all of Korean Air's fleet also had IFE systems to which you could connect your phone or tablet (via USB.)
As far as the Wi-Fi concerns mentioned in another answer, much of the world does not have any problem with Wi-Fi or Bluetooth being enabled during flight. Nearly all major U.S. airlines offer Wi-Fi during flight and some of them even provide it gate-to-gate (that is, including taxi, takeoff, and landing.) Most of them offer streaming media (movies, TV shows, and even streaming live TV) over the Wi-Fi that you can watch on your own device. On Southwest Airlines, this is actually their sole form of IFE service. There are no screens in the seatbacks; you just use your own, which is almost certainly better quality anyway. Another benefit of this approach is that airlines don't need to constantly upgrade their IFE systems, as passengers will effectively do that for them when they buy new phones/tablets/laptops.
There do exist a few jurisdictions around the world where Wi-Fi/Bluetooth are still not allowed during flight, but these seem to be a minority now.

Are there any regulations that prevent engineers from designing innovative in-flight entertainment systems?

There are no regulations banning them, but there are lots of regulations that make them expensive to design, test, and certify for flight (as with anything else that is installed on an airplane.) To underscore just how expensive new IFE system testing can be, GoGo (a major in-flight Wi-Fi provider) actually has their own 737-500 (registration N321GG) that is used for nothing but testing their in-flight Wi-Fi systems.
Even once the design, testing, and certification are done, it's expensive to take the airplane out of service long enough to install the new interior. Keep in mind that most airliners will be generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue per day (although much less in profit, of course.) Roll-outs for new equipment will generally be multi-year processes for large airlines just due to the shear number of airplanes that must be modified and that fact that you can only take a few out of service at any given time if you want to keep your airline operational.

Because there's no need.
In-flight entertainment screens are generally the size of a large phone, and definitely smaller than a tablet.  Resolution is always worse, because in-flight entertainment screens don't get replaced as often as consumer electronics.  And the audio circuit is nothing to write home about either.
So it's measurably worse in every way, compared to a phone or tablet capable of storing and playing video.  Other answers have described the amount of work needed to make it happen, for something which gives customers nothing of benefit.
Simple as that, really.

I refer you to
Swiss Air Flight 111.

At that point in the investigation, the crash was generally believed to have been caused by faulty wiring in the cockpit after the entertainment system in the plane started to overheat.
Investigators identified evidence of arcing in wiring of the in-flight entertainment system network
The TSB made nine recommendations relating to changes in aircraft materials (testing, certification, inspection, and maintenance), electrical systems, and flight data capture

As a result of incidents like Flight 111, new entertainment systems must be tested, certified, inspected, and maintained - which is going to slow down innovation.  Most passengers have tablets, laptops, etc.


text:
Which aircraft endure the highest Max Q's (aerodynamic pressure)?
What are the highest aerodynamic pressures encountered in any aircraft? And does this limit the maximum speed of any aircraft at certain altitudes? Broadly, 'how fast can you go [at a given altitude]?'
Where dynamic pressure $q$ is: $$q = \frac{1}{2} \rho v^2$$
$\rho$ is local air density, and $v$ is true airspeed.
I'm mostly concerned with high performance fighters/bombers. Here's some data I've culled (Mk-12A and 787 added for reference):
#   | Airframe      | Mach       | Speed     | Altitude    | q (kgf/m^2)
----|---------------|------------|-----------|-------------|------------
1.  | Mk-12A        | Mach  6.15 | 2,100 m/s |       0 ft  | 273,000
2.  | Mk-12A        | Mach 22.6  | 6,900 m/s | 100,000 ft  |  39,300
3.  | X-51A         | Mach  5.1  | 1,500 m/s |  64,000 ft  |  11,100
4.  | HTV-2         | Mach 20.   | 5,812 m/s | 125,000 ft? |  10,700
5.  | F-111         | Mach  1.2  |   410 m/s |       0 ft  |  10,400
6.  | B-1A          | Mach  1.2  |   410 m/s |       0 ft  |  10,400
7.  | B-1B          | Mach  0.9  |   310 m/s |       0 ft  |   6,100
8.  | X-43A         | Mach  9.6  | 3,000 m/s | 109,000 ft  |   4,800
9.  | Skylon        | Mach  5.5  | 1,630 m/s |  85,300 ft  |   4,600
10. | SR-72         | Mach  6    | 1,800 m/s |  90,000 ft? |   4,400
11. | Space Shuttle | Mach  1.3? |   400 m/s |  35,000 ft  |   3,200?
12. | XB-70         | Mach  3.0  |   880 m/s |  73,000 ft  |   2,500
13. | SR-71         | Mach  3.2  |   930 m/s |  78,740 ft  |   2,300
14. | Concorde      | Mach  2.0  |   600 m/s |  60,000 ft  |   2,100
15. | Boeing 787    | Mach   .85 |   250 m/s |  35,000 ft  |   1,200

Airframes #3, #4, and #5/6 are quite different from each other, so I'm surprised they share roughly the same max $Q$. Is 11,000 kgf/m^2 a common limit?
Note: All figures are for level flight except for the Mk-12A (reentry), Space Shuttle (ascent), and HTV-2 (glide).

[Mk-12A]: Current reentry vehicle for the Minuteman III ICBM, houses the W78 warhead (350 kT). Figures are for reentry.
[HTV-2]: Rocket glider.
[B-1B]: "[top speed] is limited by the need to avoid damage to its structure and air intakes," according to Wikipedia. The B-1B used less structural Titanium and a simpler fixed geometry inlet when the speed requirement was lowered from the B-1A.
[Skylon]: Obviously doesn't exist yet. Reaction Engines' "user manual" for the Skylon discusses the flight profile.
[SR-72]: Obviously doesn't exist yet. Lockheed Martin discussed Mach 6 cruise. 90,000 ft cruising altitude is just my placeholder value.
[Space Shuttle]: Figures for ascent.

Some background and purpose: For fun, I'm trying to design a hypersonic long-range heavy bomber. I was curious what would limit the maximum low/mid-altitude speed: drag (available engine thrust), max $Q$ (structural strength), or skin temperature (thermal protection system)... but I'll get to that in another question.
I've read through nearly all the aerodynamic, military, aircraft design, aircraft performance, and jet engine tags, looking for answers. (Really, this is a marvelous community.) Finally realized I could ask my own question.
I've tried to follow the etiquette as best as I can, but I'm pretty new to Stack Exchange, so let me know if I should change anything :) Thanks!

"For fun, I'm trying to design a hypersonic long-range heavy bomber" O_o

@bjb568 It's just a fun project to challenge myself and see how much I can get away with (I have about two weeks' worth of aerodynamics background). It's more of a design exercise than anything else. I assure you I'm not taking it that seriously!
Did I mention it's powered by an aneutronic fusion reactor? :P

You seem to be assuming that max Q is at cruise altitude and speed, but I'm not convinced of this.

@raptortech97 Oh, not at all. But my design thrust is capable of pushing much higher speeds [than the airframe can handle]. Cruise speed is ~Mach 10 at 100,000ft =D. For q=11000kgf/m^2, I think max speed is Mach 1.2 at sea_level, Mach 2.5 at 40,000ft, and finally Mach 7.5 at 85,000ft, at which point [maybe] heating dominates and skin temperature becomes the limiting factor. Certainly $q$ dominates at low altitude, I just don't know how much... But really I'd love to be disabused of my ignorance, that's why I'm here. Speaking of which, how do I vote up a comment?

Ehm...dynamic pressure is only $ \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2$ at speeds where compressibility issues can be neglected, about M 0.6. Above that, dynamic pressure becomes $ \frac{1}{2} \cdot \gamma \cdot  p \cdot M^2 $

Your data table is very interesting.  I know this is a 6 year old question, but do you happen to have the sources you used to create it?  Especially for the faster/ higher q crafts?

First, your example list doesn't distinguish between stationary and instationary trajectories. A reentry vehicle will see the highest dynamic pressure only momentarily at the end of its trip, and aerodynamic heating can be tolerated either by ablative cooling or a decently sized heat sink. All it has to sustain is the dynamic pressure at the tip.
The first samples on your list which need to continuously sustain the given dynamic pressure are the low-altitude attack aircraft B-1B and F-111. Here the dynamic pressure is given by wing loading, aerodynamics and raw thrust to keep the aircraft moving at its maximum speed. Aerodynamic heating comes on top at high altitude, because the stagnation point heat is independent of air density.
Reasons to limit the maximum dynamic pressure are:

gust loads at low altitude. Hitting the same updraft at higher speed will proportionally increase the load factor.
Aeroelastic deformation: Higher dynamic pressure means also higher torsional and bending loads, and the deformed structure might become unstable when the deformation increases the loads which lead to this deformation. Flying at higher dynamic pressure requires a stiffer and heavier structure.

If you look at the flight envelope of the SR-71 (below), it should be obvious that at each altitude only a narrow band of speed was available due to the high wing loading (= high minimum dynamic pressure) and the maximum dynamic pressure (at low altitude) rsp. the aerodynamic heating (at high altitude).

SR-71 flight envelope (picture source)

Thanks! I'll edit to clarify. I actually used that same chart to pick a top speed. I guess what I'm trying to ask is, "Roughly how fast can you go [at a given altitude] considering aerodynamic loads alone?" (I'll get to heating in a separate question.) I know that's a broad question (different designs, mass budget, what have you), which is why I didn't ask it. I'm trying to get a sense for a common upper bound on a fighter or high performance bomber.

@HephaestusAetnaean: There is no real limit. Use low-aspect ratio wings of solid steel, and you can increase the maximum dynamic pressure a lot. If that is still not stiff enough, make the wings from diamond, or use a thicker airfoil. Practical limits are close to what you give in your list, which is about 100,000 N/m² or 1 bar.

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! I've actually read/skimmed through most of your answers, and they've been incredibly helpful. What do you do, if you don't mind me asking? And what do you use for your sources on aerodynamics?

Oops. Forgot to accept and vote! Thanks again, Peter!

@HephaestusAetnaean: What I do? Currently working on an IoT thingy. Have worked in aerospace for two decades and was too disgusted to continue. Corruption, vanity and idiocy were too much for me, even though I worked with many good people.

Used to be a fighter pilot in the F-111 and the F-105. They have the highest Q limit I have encountered or read about. (To us high speed on the deck) That limit is 810 knots/Mach 1.2 down low. Both aircraft could sustain that airspeed, I have personally done it in the F105 below sea level in Death Valley.  Attached are the Technical order airspeed limits:

I do not believe the B-1B is capable of these speeds, there were all sorts of additional limits placed on it.  Modern fighters are no longer designed for this regime.